Why all the hate for1920x1080 displays?

[Corporate Thug]

I always hear people saying how 1920x1080 is a deal breaker. How much worse can 1920x1080 be versus 1920x1200? Is it really that big of a deal?

 

[Madcatatlas]

I never hear that. Though i i do have a 1920x1080 and i do like it.

Im sure i would have liked a 1920x1200 aswell, but ...its not the end of the world now, is it?

 

[v8envy]

120 lines is 10% of the resolution. Yes, it makes a huge difference in some instances. And not just "multi-boxing" 800x600 MMO windows.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I would prefer 1920x1200, to be honest. 1920x1080 just seems way too short for normal productivity.

 

[Barfo]

I guess I don't understand because I upgraded from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080 and I feel good about it. Obviously the extra pixels make it better but it wans't a deal breaker for me.

 

[Will Robinson]

If you want to see how bad it is,run the Unigine benchmark at 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 native res monitor.
The large empty strip at the bottom of the screen is just awful...what a waste.
16:10 FTW

 

[Tsavo]

1080 is livable. 16:9 on anything smaller isn't.

 

[Imported]

I went from 1600x1200 to 1920x1080.. and I missed the vertical space at first, but after moving my taskbar to the side instead of the bottom, I didn't miss it all that much anymore.

 

[senseamp]

Because it's too shallow for it's width.

 

[konakona]

Going by similar threads in the past, I was under impression this was mainly for productivity/desktop use. Nearly all video in circulation are 16:9 anyway and most recent games I know of support 16:9. Going from a 1920x1200 24'' to a 1080p 32'' was great as far as I am concerned, the only thing I really appreciated was better immersion from going bigger. If it makes quality screens more affordable, I am all for it.

 

[dug777]

Becuase it makes a huge difference to the 'useability' of the screen for productivity/desktop use, in the main

Which is why I have a 24" 19x12

 

[dorion]

1440x900 ok(mine right now).

1920x1080 hey full screen 1080!

2560x1440 getting there.

Now lets go IPhone 4 PPI, on a 22 inch screen: 7680x4320

So that is why people dig on 1920x1080.

 

[Vesku]

Yeah, 1080P is just fine for video and gaming but if you run a lot of desktop window applications I'd take the extra vertical of the 19x12 unit if the price difference was reasonable ~10-20%.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I have no intention of buying a 22 inch monitor with iPhone 4 PPI. Even 1920x1080 on a 21" monitor is still too high; I'd rather that resolution be on a 24" or so.

 

[Wag]

How about 2560x1440? I love my Dell u2711.

 

[Vesku]

Agreed, for these resolutions 23-24 inch is about right for a desk monitor. I have a 21.5" 1080P unit and if I wasn't already used to the PPI from my workhorse 17" LCD, I would have hated it.

 

[genegold]

Try going from a 19" LCD of the old style dimensions, i.e., 11.75" viewable vertical (1280x1024), to a typical 20-23" 1920x1080 for productivity/desktop uses and even movies. It's part of why the 1680x1050 is/was liked by a lot of people.

 

[dorion]

I have no intention of buying a 22 inch monitor with iPhone 4 PPI. Even 1920x1080 on a 21" monitor is still too high; I'd rather that resolution be on a 24" or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_independence

You just aren't thinking small.

 

[CurseTheSky]

I have a 24" 1920x1200 2408WFP and a 23" 1920x1080 EA231WMi. For productivity, I prefer 1920x1200. For entertainment (gaming and movies) and general use, I prefer 1920x1080.

 

[konakona]

Yeah, 1080P is just fine for video and gaming but if you run a lot of desktop window applications I'd take the extra vertical of the 19x12 unit if the price difference was reasonable ~10-20%.

exactly. I don't do any work at home. for work, I really don't give rat's ass about what computer I use.. just need get it over with one way or another

 

[MJinZ]

The only thing wrong with 1920x1080 is that it isn't 2560x1600.

 

[Voo]

exactly. I don't do any work at home. for work, I really don't give rat's ass about what computer I use.. just need get it over with one way or another

What the only thing you're doing with your PC at home is gaming and watching videos? Obviously you DO use your browser and use other applications as well - and there 120px more vertical space really can't harm.

I mean I could live with less, but hey I could also live with 1680x1050 - but why, if I don't have to? Most games work fine with 16:10 too and black bars at the movies I watch.. can deal with that (oh and I don't watch hollywood movies these days, but since most movies for cinema release use a ar other than 16:9, you end up with pan&scan or letterboxing in either case, don't you?)

 

[konakona]

What the only thing you're doing with your PC at home is gaming and watching videos? Obviously you DO use your browser and use other applications as well - and there 120px more vertical space really can't harm.

I mean I could live with less, but hey I could also live with 1680x1050 - but why, if I don't have to? Most games work fine with 16:10 too and black bars at the movies I watch.. can deal with that (oh and I don't watch hollywood movies these days, but since most movies for cinema release use a ar other than 16:9, you end up with pan&scan or letterboxing in either case, don't you?)

I do some browsing too, but my priority is definitely #1 videos then fowllowed by #2 games. I rarely ever watch movies, all I watch is anime (TV/OVA/theatrical) which only come in 720p or 1080p; no letterboxing whatsoever to speak of.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_independence

You just aren't thinking small.

AFAIK most things aren't resolution independent; when I switched from my 19" 1280x1024 to my 21" 1920x1080, it was really surprising seeing what wasn't. It took quite some getting used to.

 

[Winterpool]

Context matters: how far are you sitting from the screen, and what are you watching...

Cinema, big movies, often use aspect ratios that are considerably wider than 16:9 (1.78:1), eg 2.39:1. The extra width adds an immersive, wrap-around feeling to the movie when you're sitting inside a spacious cinema, but you're generally sitting close enough to a rather large screen that the reduced height (at least the reduced proportion of height) is not a problem (it's still absolutely pretty tall). And with analogue film you're going to get plenty of 'resolution'.

Sitting in front of a desktop monitor, however, a 16:9 screen is obviously shorter than a similar-diagonal 16:10 screen (let alone 4:3). You might feel cramped, especially on the < 23-24 inch displays. And of course actual pixels matter on a computer display, since they determine how much of a document you see, how much workspace you have to navigate and edit/create in, etc. Computer media, whether digital text, web pages, or high-resolution photos tend to be larger than the screen, often on the vertical axis, whereas videos are usually restricted to 1080 or less.

If you work on your computer, you can almost always use more vertical pixels on your display. Sure, black bars are wasted space when watching a 16:9 movie (even worse with 2.39:1), but that's not the primary function of your computer monitor. And most of us own HDTVs anyhow...

Because 27-inch displays (eg the larger iMac) are so capacious in both physical dimensions and pixels, I find the 16:9 aspect ratio (2560x1440) far less problematic. 1440 is still a lot of vertical pixels and more than 1200!